Auburn, Washington (December 7, 2009) – In a desperate attempt to stall an employee vote at Alan Ritchey, Inc. which would rescind their forced dues privileges, Teamsters Local 117 union bosses filed unfair labor practice charges against the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, asking the federal labor board to block an election sought by the employees.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of National Right to Work, released the following statement regarding the Teamster Local 117 officials’ charges:

“Teamster Local 117 union bosses’ desperate attempt to abuse the process to strip employees of their rightful vote to remove the Teamsters’ forced union dues privileges is outright frivolous. Sensing a lack of support from the employees, Teamsters Local 117 union officials are using procedural gimmicks to keep their forced-dues gravy train going.

“National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have represented several independent-minded employees who have been targeted by Local 117 union brass during their ongoing campaign of retaliation and harassment against employees who exercise their legal rights to refrain from funding union political activities. It’s downright ludicrous to suggest that a legal foundation located on the other side of the country is somehow coercing the employees who contacted us on their own for help.

“Forced union dues is an outrageous violation of employees’ freedom of association, and it leads to an unaccountable union hierarchy. Union officials don’t want to have to earn the support of rank and file workers, instead preferring to possess the power to get employees fired for nonpayment of union dues.”

With help from Foundation attorneys, Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center – filed unfair labor practice charges against Local 117 last month.

The employees received a letter from union officials giving them only a few days to exercise their Foundation-won legal rights to refrain from paying union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events – even though the employees had already exercised these rights – or be fired from their jobs. At about the same time, other Alan Ritchey employees also filed a petition seeking a deauthorization election which would void the forced union dues clause in the contract with their employer.

Pittsburgh, PA (December 8, 2009) – A judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees, maintaining a permanent injunction against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ constitutional rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Exercising monopoly bargaining power over PTC employees, Local 250 officials may collect forced union dues from nonmembers – but only for expenses which union officials can prove are spent on collective bargaining.

Last year, the District Court levied a permanent injunction against Local 250 from seizing forced dues from nonmembers until it complies with the due-process and adequate disclosure requirements in the Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association line of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Charges must be verified by an independent auditor, and workers must have the opportunity to challenge the fee’s basis.

Union officials asked U.S. District Court Judge Nora Barry Fischer to lift the injunction, but Fischer found that the union still had not complied with all of the constitutional requirements under Hudson and Lehnert. Specifically, Fischer held that the union’s audit contained overly broad language concerning organizing, lobbying, and membership activities. Fischer also singled out Local 250’s charges to nonmembers for «professional fees,» including 100 percent of all legal expenses – meaning that union bosses were attempting to charge nonmembers the cost of defending its illegal actions against them.

«Pennsylvania should adopt a Right to Work law so independent-minded employees do not have to jump through legal hoop after legal hoop just to find out what they are being charged for,» said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «In the absence of such a protection, union bosses will continue to try to abuse employees’ rights in their lust for more money and power.»

Hudson, OH (December 8, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a local worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) Local 791 union. The charges allege that union officials intentionally discriminated against nonunion employees and failed to inform workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

Janet Barlow is a driver employed at First Student, whose contract with OAPSE gives union officials monopoly bargaining privileges in her workplace. Barlow alleges that union officials failed to notify employees of their rights to opt-out of union membership and the payment of full union dues.

Although workers can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, full union membership is strictly voluntary. Moreover, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay dues earmarked for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, including member-only events and political lobbying.

OAPSE officials are also charged with intentionally discriminating against nonunion workers by circulating a notice stating that full union members do not have to pay dues until September 1, 2010, but nonmember employees must begin payments immediately. As a result of this threat, many employees joined the union who otherwise would not have.

Barlow’s charges seek an end to these discriminatory practices and the return of illegally-seized dues. Her allegations will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Barlow has also filed a formal deauthorization petition with the NLRB to remove the unpopular forced dues clause from the union’s contract.

“OAPSE bosses are forcing workers to pay union dues and using discriminatory practices to shove unwilling employees into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although we hope to help Janet Barlow and her coworkers rectify these injustices, the best way to prevent further abuse of this nature would be for Ohio to pass a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined UAW officials violated federal law and issued Reed a “right to sue” letter, but the union hierarchy still refused to grant him a proper accommodation. Foundation litigators then filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and later appealed an unfavorable trial court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Foundation attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions which require Reed to be discharged or disciplined before he can challenge the UAW’s practice of forcing religious objectors to pay more than the forced dues paid by nonmembers who refrain from union membership for purely secular reasons. Foundation attorneys also point out in their brief that the nation’s federal circuit courts are equally divided on the issue.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its objectionable activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Phoenix, AZ (December 23, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five employees from different Fry’s Food Stores locations have filed federal charges challenging their employer’s and a local union’s efforts to block them from stopping the seizure of union dues from their paychecks.

Disgusted with recent union strike threats, large numbers of employees withdrew from the union, but union officials are now retaliating by refusing to honor their legal rights and getting Fry’s management to deduct and forward the union dues money anyway.

Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, and Kimberly Stewart and Kristy Dickenson of Queen Creek – acting for other similarly situated employees – filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union bosses and Fry’s.

In the midst of a well-publicized UFCW Local 99 union-threatened strike in November 2009, the employees resigned from the UFCW union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations during a time in which the UFCW union did not have a contract at their workplaces. Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union, and under federal labor law, if there is no longer a bargaining agreement in effect between union officials and an employer, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations at any time.

Dues deduction authorizations are used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks. Despite the employees’ best efforts to halt the dues seizures, Fry’s continues to illegally collect from the employees union dues for the UFCW union hierarchy.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB regional director in Phoenix, who can prosecute the union officials and the company for violating the employees’ legal rights.

“Despite repeated requests, UFCW Local 99 and company officials have ignored workers’ attempts to exercise their right to stop paying union dues” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We intend to make sure that UFCW operatives play by the rules and stop extracting union dues from workers who want nothing to do with this unaccountable union.”

Des Moines, Iowa (December 31, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Bridgestone Corporation employee filed federal charges after his employer illegally diverted a portion of his paycheck to a local union to which the employee does not belong.

The case points out the need for strong and fully enforced Right to Work laws and other protections against forced unionism abuse. A few Iowa legislators have recently tried to repeal the state’s Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues payment voluntary – even though doing so would lead to employee rights violations on a massive scale.

Terry L. Welch of Polk City filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against United Steelworkers Local 310 union bosses and Bridgestone.

In October, Welch resigned from the Steelworkers union and revoked his dues deduction authorization. Dues deduction authorizations are used by union officials to automatically withhold union dues from employee paychecks.

Under Iowa’s popular Right to Work law no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union as a condition of employment. Additionally, the union’s own dues authorization card allows Welch to revoke his authorization at any time.

However, union officials are ignoring Welch’s repeated requests to exercise his legal rights. Despite the employee’s best efforts to resign from union membership and halt the dues seizures, Bridgestone continues to illegally deduct union dues from Welch’s paycheck and forward them to the union hierarchy.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB regional director in Des Moines who can prosecute the union officials and the company for violating the employee’s legal rights.

“Despite repeated requests, Steelworker union bosses are disregarding their own rules and ignoring Mr. Welch’s legitimate attempts to exercise his right to stop paying union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Fortunately, workers in the Hawkeye State have rights under federal law and Iowa’s Right to Work law to help combat the corrupt actions of unaccountable union bosses.”

Washington, DC (January 19, 2010) – Citing substantial legal precedent, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion with the National Mediation Board (NMB) seeking the recusal of the two former union officials who are behind a dramatic rule change proposal on how a union is imposed on non-union railway and airline industry workers.

The NMB, the federal agency tasked with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries, is quietly rolling back 75 years of precedent and changing labor union organizing regulations, greasing the skids for union organizers to lock industry workers into union ranks.

The two board members who now comprise the majority of the board, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, were both appointed by President Barack Obama and were executive officers for two of the very unions pushing for the changes.

Hoglander was a union official with the Air Line Pilots Association union and Puchala was an officer of the Association of Flight Attendants union. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition urging the NMB to discard its policy of requiring a true majority of all workers within a collective bargaining unit to decide for themselves if they wish to be represented by a union. The new procedure would stack the deck in favor of unionization by requiring only a majority of workers actually voting in a union organizing election to make that decision for the whole group.

The members voted 2-1 to preliminarily support the controversial change, and NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty has criticized the hasty actions of the two members.

“President Obama’s appointed Big Labor operatives on the National Mediation Board should recuse themselves from this controversial effort to give union bosses the upper hand over independent-minded workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of National Right to Work. “If these members do not recuse themselves, the NMB’s actions will betray the integrity of government decision-making as well as President Obama’s pledge that his personnel would avoid these very violations of ethics.”

Foundation attorneys have previously appeared before the NMB asking for the proposed change to be rejected because it would make it exceedingly difficult for independent-minded workers to resist Big Labor’s well-funded, professional organizing machine, particularly since these campaigns must be run across entire, often-nationwide bargaining units. The proposed change also imposes a greater burden on employees who wish to refrain from union membership by forcing them to either take affirmative action to oppose the union or otherwise potentially allow far less than a majority to make that decision for them.

Worker Advocate Seeks Biased Agency Members’ Recusal on Controversial Transportation Union Rule Change

Former airline union officials should not use federal power to help their unions corral tens of thousands of workers into union membership

Washington, DC (January 19, 2010) – Citing substantial legal precedent, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion with the National Mediation Board (NMB) seeking the recusal of the two former union officials who are behind a dramatic rule change proposal on how a union is imposed on non-union railway and airline industry workers.

The NMB, the federal agency tasked with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries, is quietly rolling back 75 years of precedent and changing labor union organizing regulations, greasing the skids for union organizers to lock industry workers into union ranks.

The two board members who now comprise the majority of the board, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, were both appointed by President Barack Obama and were executive officers for two of the very unions pushing for the changes.

Click here to read the full release.

In 2007, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to establish new rights for workers through the landmark Dana/Metaldyne decision.  The ruling empowered workers to call a vote to kick out an unwanted union during a 45-day window period following a successful "card check" organizing drive.

The ruling was a rebuke of union organizers and their coercive tactics, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged the abuses, and determined that employees needed a way to challenge the imposition of a union workplace monopoly via card check by obtaining a secret ballot decertification election.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the NLRB maintained an online database of all card check recognitions and any subsequent union decertification elections. The NLRB, however, stopped updating this information last spring. Foundation attorneys recently demanded the NLRB to update the database regularly, and NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman responded last week.  Although she blamed the General Counsel’s office for the neglect, she stated the agency would post new information monthly going forward.

While this information doesn’t prevent coercive card check organizing on the job – an increasingly common union tactic even without passage of the pending EFCA legislation in Congress – it does help the public see how widely used this abusive union organizing actually is… and which companies have blocked their employees’ access to secret balloting.

Perhaps even more importantly, this data reveals the nasty little fact that card check signing does not represent employees’ true wishes.  For in many cases, the very union bosses who came in through card check were sent packing — only days later — after employees obtained a secret ballot vote. 

Detroit, MI (January 28, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a citizen activist announced today he will file an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court in an ongoing public disclosure battle over the use of school district e-mail systems for union political activities.

In 2007, political activist Chetly Zarko from DeWitt – invoking Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure law – requested e-mail communications among Howell Education Association (HEA) union brass regarding heated bargaining negotiations between the Howell Public School (HPS) system and union officials. The HEA union is a local affiliate of the Michigan Education Association and National Education Association unions.

At the time of the collective bargaining conflict, Zarko suspected union boss lobbying was occurring at taxpayer expense. Zarko is seeking the release of approximately 5,500 e-mails between the union hierarchy and teachers.

HEA union officials claimed a special exception from the requirements of Michigan’s FOIA law, despite the fact that the e-mails were sent over a taxpayer funded e-mail system and the HPS’s “Acceptable Use Policy” explicitly states that e-mails sent on the server are “not consider private communication [and] may be re-posted.”

Foundation attorneys won a ruling from the Livingston Circuit Court requiring disclosure, but union lawyers managed to convince the State of Michigan Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court’s decision.

“Public resources should not be spent on the shadowy and self-serving political activities of union bosses,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Howell Education Association union officials should be subject to the same public disclosure requirements as everyone else who uses taxpayer funds.”